|
Start cathartic rant.
This is my plea to the PFS campaign staff and scenario writers. Please, please, please stop making skills irrelevant/ destroying a plausible roleplaying situation.. Again last night while playing Shadows Last Stand Part II, as we captured and NPC my character approached with the intent to Intimidate some info out of the guy. Then the DM says "Oh the module says he does not talk, your intimidate will not work". I sigh and move on. How many times have I seen this? I know the writers love their NPC's, but why are they so special that certain rules do not work against them. If the NPC's can get skill immunity, why not PC's? I mean come on, thanks for punishing me for putting ranks in the less feel good option of the social skills. If you feel the need then write in a bonus. "Nate the NPC grew up on the streets and is accustomed to threats, any attempt to Intimidate has its DC increased by 5." But please stop "box texting" away our plausible options.
Ok end rant.
|
This is something that bugs me. In the PFS guide it says that GM's should encourage creative solutions by their players and change the scenario accordingly. A good example:
Nothing is worse than the players feeling that their actions are meaningless because of what it says on a page. If the players mess the plot up, then good! They are creating something new. Take a moment, explain to the players that they have done something unexpected and you will have to think about what to do next.
Then take a five minute break so they can freshen up or get a coke or whatever. Whilst they do that either approach the event organiser for some advice or rejig the plot on the fly to take account of the new reality. This is where a GM earns his spurs.
Another example:
|
|
This is something that bugs me. In the PFS guide it says that GM's should encourage creative solutions by their players and change the scenario accordingly. A good example:
** spoiler omitted **
Nothing is worse than the players feeling that their actions are meaningless because of what it says on a page. If the players mess the plot up, then good! They are creating something new. Take a moment, explain to the players that they have done something unexpected and you will have to think about what to do next.
Then take a five minute break so they can freshen up or get a coke or whatever. Whilst they do that either approach the event organiser for some advice or rejig the plot on the fly to take account of the new reality. This is where a GM earns his spurs.
Another example:
** spoiler omitted **
As to the adventure on the boat with the stuff, I had a very creative solution used at my table. They got tired of trying to find him, absolutely hated every NPC on the boat, so they se it aflame and left. Profession sailor + profession fisherman + create water....as a GM, my mind hurt. However, my players are *still* crowing about it, months later.
|
|
This is something that bugs me.
It is better to have a plot which advances no matter the actions of the PCs (see Dalsine Affair), than to have a plot which does not advance at all (see just about every other PFS module).
What if Wesley's ship was not waylaid by the Dread Pirate Roberts?
What if Aragorn died at Weathertop? or Frodo?
What if Luke missed the thermal exhaust port?
For metaplots to function, Mr. Camelot, sometimes certain events have to happen (or not happen), regardless of what the PCs do.
-Matt
|
Players have to allow for fluff text that they cannot affect, so that the campaign staff can advance their meta-plot. The mission in the above was not to stop what happened. The players were able to succeed at their primary pathfinder mission, and all their faction missions, and then enjoy the plot fluff.
As for some NPC's not talking... why should they? Why should a 7th level Half-Orc with 7 ranks in Intimidate with feats that enhance intimidate for a total of +20 or whatever, have a chance in hell of subverting an NPC's fear of Urgathoa or some other dark lord?
As players, you have to allow for the fact that certain NPC motivations and their psychic make-up may make them immune to intimidate or diplomacy. That is actually more realistic than say Clarice whipping out a monster Intimidate roll and getting Hannibal Lecter to spill the beans without first screwing around with her head.
Let some scenes be cinematic cut scenes, enjoy them, then get back to the things you can do something about.
And for the suggestion that you should let them stop something or get some information or whatever... ONLY as a creative work around to something they don't have the correct skill for, have failed repeatedly with the correct skill, or just seem to be going the wrong way... not when the scenario specifically says "this can't be done."
In a home campaign, making these changes are perfectly acceptable. In organized play, they are not.
And not being able to stop one thing does not mean that you suddenly don't have an effect on the world. You gotta look at the entire scenario as a whole.
Now granted, by and large, there aren't many scenarios that make pathfinders feel like they have an effect on the overall meta-plot. Rather they are just doing their non-cohesive series of missions and watching the politics from on-up high with passing interest. I have a feeling this will change soon though.
|
I think the skill is poorly worded. Specifically spelling out that the target will "give you information you desire" makes this skill extremely succeptible to abuse, especially when it is so easy to hyper-inflate the intimidate skill.
Also, this is looks like a bad case of DM'ing. In this instance, I would have let you roll, and just said "Sorry, he doesn't seem to be intimidated by you."
|
You just have to be careful how much "freelancing" you allow the players to do. As long as they are not intentionally trying to break the story, they should be given every opportunity to approach their challenges in their own way.
I have had a few cases where a player/s guessed that a certain event was a trigger-point for the rest of the mod and tried their best to ruin said trigger.
Remember that we all gathered to play a published scenario. We CHOSE to play. Please don't go out of your way to make the GM's job more challenging than it needs to be.
In a home-style game, you can be much more open to players going off track because the GM has complete control to modify or completely scrap an encounter or an entire mod. In organized play, the GM is expected to largely follow the material as written. Not to mention that time is limited.
Feel free to come up with creative ways to deal with situations as they occur, but try to avoid doing things that bypass entire sections of the scenario or to destroy the plot.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Feel free to come up with creative ways to deal with situations as they occur, but try to avoid doing things that bypass entire sections of the scenario or to destroy the plot.
In addition, a good GM is one who can improvise, allowing the PCs to do as they wish while still making the module work.
-Matt
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know the writers love their NPC's, but why are they so special that certain rules do not work against them. If the NPC's can get skill immunity, why not PC's?
To play Devil's Advocate, I'd hate to mention it but players do have skill immunity. Sure, you can give a player the shaken condition with Intimidate, but as GM I'll never force a PC to surrender or to tell me exactly what the NPC wants to know, even if my NPC just beat a DC 40 on his Intimidate skill.
"Sorry guys, you break down, surrender and tell Rimetusk all about your mission. The troll just beat DC 40 on his Intimidate check. Everyone hand in your sheets."
The same goes for Diplomacy. Just because an NPC has a +50 Diplomacy, no GM has ever forced a PC to:
1) Provide a service for less or take a lesser cut of the loot.
2) Force a PC to stop interrogating the NPC for information, because he's just too damn nice.
3) Stop an attack. "No, you can't attack him, you like him far too much"
4) Sell a magic item for less money than normal
Players would go CRAZY.
So my point is, "Players are already immune to many skill checks".
Now regarding giving NPCs immunities to Intimidate or Diplomacy, I have no problem at all giving NPCs skill immunities under certain conditions.
There are certain scenarios where I thought a boss should NEVER be Intimidated, and/or they should have had Intimidation DCs of epic proportions (DC 35+), but they didn't. There should also be negative consequences for using Intimidate (or lies), but more often or not there are none (mostly because it's a pain in the butt to do in PFS).
Diplomacy and Intimidation are overused skills in PF, players use these skills to try to solve every problem. And that's really boring tbh.
Like I said before, Diplomacy and Intimidation are very overused and I just don't think every problem should be solved by them.
When I think about how realistic these skills are, in real life, I don't give a s!~@ who is intimidating me (including Brock Lesnar), there are things I will never ever do, even at gun point. And others, even when tortured. So seriously, Intimidate isn't going to work on me for important things. So I think it's also not going to work on bosses in PF scenarios in certain situations as well.
Same thing with Diplomacy. I don't care how hot a woman is or how friendly some guy is, there are definite limits on what I'll do for them. And these limits better be reasonable limits.
I think these skills are overused and PF definitely pushes the boundaries as far as the realism of these skills go.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
What Jason S said....
"Diplomacy and Intimidations are overused skills in PF, players use these skills to try to solve every problem. And that's reallly boring tbh."
Using a skill which you've optimized to the point of being ridiculous is not "creative role-playing" IMO.
What Jason S said....
"Diplomacy and Intimidations are overused skills in PF, players use these skills to try to solve every problem. And that's reallly boring tbh."
Using a skill which you've optimized to the point of being ridiculous is not "creative role-playing" IMO.
To be fair, having a zillion faction missions that hinge on Diplomacy checks is hardly discouraging players from optimizing Diplomacy checks.
I have had a few cases where a player/s guessed that a certain event was a trigger-point for the rest of the mod and tried their best to ruin said trigger.
Remember that we all gathered to play a published scenario. We CHOSE to play. Please don't go out of your way to make the GM's job more challenging than it needs to be.
Feel free to come up with creative ways to deal with situations as they occur, but try to avoid doing things that bypass entire sections of the scenario or to destroy the plot.
+1 for this post. Allowing PCs to intimidate the NPC at the beginning of a suspense/mystery themed module could pretty much destroy the entire thing. "Oh, yeah, so-and-so is secretly manipulating everything. Let me mark on your map where the final secret dungeon is." Module over, 30 minutes. That might be fun for the person who built the Intimidate machine, but everyone else at the table loses out on enjoying the story. And, to be fair, the most interesting stories are the ones that show the characters reacting in believable ways, not showing the characters overpowering and outgunning everything easily with one quick use of a social skill.
For example, Lord of the Rings.... 45 minutes into the first film, Frodo stops on the road and says to the leader of the Ringwraiths, "Hey, stop following me." Rolls Intimidate, and succeeds. Casually walks to Mordor, intimidates the gate men into opening the gate, walks to Mt. Doom, tosses in the ring. 1 hour of movie time, no character development.
|
|
Not targeting you specifically, but lots of people say these things, and yet, the news is rife with stories where people do give in to temptation. Same with torture, though said stories are far less common.
For temptation, I'm going to argue the person is already open to the request (they want to do it). The request is *reasonable* in this case, they're not handing over 1 million dollars or their new car.
For torture, that's an entirely different thing from 6 seconds of intimidation, a good beating, or threat of death. Almost anyone breaks under 3+ days of solid torture.
|
|
For example, Lord of the Rings.... 45 minutes into the first film, Frodo stops on the road and says to the leader of the Ringwraiths, "Hey, stop following me." Rolls Intimidate, and succeeds. Casually walks to Mordor, intimidates the gate men into opening the gate, walks to Mt. Doom, tosses in the ring. 1 hour of movie time, no character development.
Or Gandalf just has one of those cool huge eagles fly Frodo to Mount Door and he drops the ring in. DONE!
Screw you Sauron :-)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To play Devil's Advocate, I'd hate to mention it but players do have skill immunity. Sure, you can give a player the shaken condition with Intimidate, but as GM I'll never force a PC to surrender or to tell me exactly what the NPC wants to know, even if my NPC just beat a DC 40 on his Intimidate skill."Sorry guys, you break down, surrender and tell Rimetusk all about your mission. The troll just beat DC 40 on his Intimidate check. Everyone hand in your sheets."
The same goes for Diplomacy. Just because an NPC has a +50 Diplomacy, no GM has ever forced a PC to:
1) Provide a service for less or take a lesser cut of the loot.
2) Force a PC to stop interrogating the NPC for information, because he's just too damn nice.
3) Stop an attack. "No, you can't attack him, you like him far too much"
4) Sell a magic item for less money than normalPlayers would go CRAZY.
So my point is, "Players are already immune to many skill checks".
Well first off I never said I optimized Intimidate. I did not. I have some ranks in it with a Charisma of 10, With a trait that works out to be +8 at lvl 3. So enough to be useful but far from optimized. I also hav ranks in Bluff and Diplomacy and use those skills as well. but ultimately the level of PC skill is irrelevant to my point.
Second of, regarding the rest of your post, you must play a far different game then I because yeah that happens, a lot. As a matter of fact we totally got hosed by Rimetusk due to HIS maxed out Intimidate. (Oh sure the writers can use Intimidate.) Our great ambitions quickly turned into "Whatever you say Mr. Rimetusk." Mainly because, I don't know, umm that is how the rules work. Do we get to ignore hit point damage as well if it does not fit well into our character concept? "Well that would normally hit my AC, but it would really cramp my style so I will ignore the rules on this one?"
It's like getting upset that your trip-specialist can't trip snakes and oozes.
It is not at all alike. One is a published rule and one is a subversion of one. A trip specialist knows from the start that all oozes can not be tripped. Not just the ones the writers feel like not being tripped.
For metaplots to function, Mr. Camelot, sometimes certain events have to happen (or not happen), regardless of what the PCs do.
So then don't write a scenario where the PC's capture and interrogate an NPC that has information you do not want the PC's to have. Why write a metaplot that only works if the PC's fail?
As for some NPC's not talking... why should they? Why should a 7th level Half-Orc with 7 ranks in Intimidate with feats that enhance intimidate for a total of +20 or whatever, have a chance in hell of subverting an NPC's fear of Urgathoa or some other dark lord?
Now this is ridiculous. Why? Because maybe the PC is talented and intimidation. Maybe they freak them out until they slip up a blurt something out they did not mean to. Intimidation is not just "tell me everything or I will hurt you." Put them off balance, bluff some info, then keep them talking until they mess up. Like I said in my post, give them a modifier if their is a compelling plot reason, but the PC's should have a chance simply because that is what makes the difference between a roleplaying game and reading a script. One you interact with, one you are just a long for the ride.
Once again the traps always have a DC even if it impossibly high. Diplomacy always works has a shot, Stealth is always opposed by a Perception check. So why is Intimidate picked on and just simply hand waived away?
|
|
What Jason S said....
"Diplomacy and Intimidations are overused skills in PF, players use these skills to try to solve every problem. And that's reallly boring tbh."
Using a skill which you've optimized to the point of being ridiculous is not "creative role-playing" IMO.
The problem is in the creation of one Diplomacy skill, that is expected to work in all situations, regardless of context.
It also leads to the opposite problem; the adventure writers set the DCs to challenge the optimised Diplomancer, meaning no-one else need bother to try, which is equally boring.
One way I've thought of, to both break the no-brainer skill use, and to involve the other PCs, is to do away with the Diplomacy skill altogether. Make 'Diplomacy' a special use of another skill, in the same way that 'Tumbling' is a specific use of Acrobatics.
And make the various bonuses context-specific.
People react better when dealing with someone who 'speaks their language', knows the jargon, can give them meaningful compliments, and talk shop.
The mounted warrior should be able to leverage his ranks in Ride, to impress the horse trainers, traders and stablehands.
The rogue with Profession (sailor) should be able to work the waterfront.
The priest should be able to prove his credentials via Knowledge (religion) to impress the local clergy, or recall a verse of holy text that relates so well to the party's situation, they consider they are destined to help.
Let's stop the spamming of one skill, and open it up to all the players; it's more fun to keep everyone engaged, rather than taking a smoke break, and it encourages the PCs to split up to work their own people.
|
|
Second of, regarding the rest of your post, you must play a far different game then I because yeah that happens, a lot. As a matter of fact we totally got hosed by Rimetusk due to HIS maxed out Intimidate. (Oh sure the writers can use Intimidate.) Our great ambitions quickly turned into "Whatever you say Mr. Rimetusk." Mainly because, I don't know, umm that is how the rules work. Do we get to ignore hit point damage as well if it does not fit well into our character concept? "Well that would normally hit my AC, but it would really cramp my style so I will ignore the rules on this one?"
Deserves a spoiler.
The Rimetusk encounter, when he used Intimidate, it basically made you "look scared" for a moment, which is a fluff change only. It was also only supposed to happen for a certain faction mission.
Rimetusk couldn't force your PCs to do anything. If your GM played it differently, your GM played it WRONG.
Also, his Intimidate isn't great, it's +5/+7 depending on subtier. That's pretty crappy for a 3/7 HD creature, but it's enough to beat low level characters with low wisdom. My 1st level gnome bard could scare you more. :)
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
To be fair, having a zillion faction missions that hinge on Diplomacy checks is hardly discouraging players from optimizing Diplomacy checks.What Jason S said....
"Diplomacy and Intimidations are overused skills in PF, players use these skills to try to solve every problem. And that's reallly boring tbh."
Using a skill which you've optimized to the point of being ridiculous is not "creative role-playing" IMO.
Oh, no doubt. That doesn't mean you can use Diplomacy (or Intimidate) to solve every other problem in the game though. Nor is it particularly 'creative' to use it all the time because you've maxxed it out.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
The problem is in the creation of one Diplomacy skill, that is expected to work in all situations, regardless of context.
It also leads to the opposite problem; the adventure writers set the DCs to challenge the optimised Diplomancer, meaning no-one else need bother to try, which is equally boring.
Diplomacy and Intimidate are not the swiss army knife skill people make them out to be.
For example, in the original post they want an NPC to betray their allies. Well regardless of how friendly or compliant you make someone that doesn't make them LESS friendly or loyal towards his allies. It's sort of like using charm person, just because someone is your buddy doesn't mean he's going to stab his friend in the back. This isn't just intuition, it's actually written in plain text in the rules.
"Once a creature's attitude has shifted to helpful, the creature gives in to most requests without a check, unless the request is against its nature or puts it in serious peril. Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature's values or its nature, subject to GM discretion." - (the new shiny PRD)
More generally, the skills system is too easy to game. Getting a +20 or +30 even in a skill check is fairly easy, and often the items that boost skills are relatively inexpensive. Its particularly bad because there are very few characters that are good at countering the skills, some of them are simply impossible to counter.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Diplomacy and Intimidate are not the swiss army knife skill people make them out to be.For example, in the original post they want an NPC to betray their allies. Well regardless of how friendly or compliant you make someone that doesn't make them LESS friendly or loyal towards his allies. It's sort of like using charm person, just because someone is your buddy doesn't mean he's going to stab his friend in the back. This isn't just intuition, it's actually written in plain text in the rules.
"Once a creature's attitude has shifted to helpful, the creature gives in to most requests without a check, unless the request is against its nature or puts it in serious peril. Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature's values or its nature, subject to GM discretion." - (the new shiny PRD)
If I understand well, you are saying that the RAW put stringent limits on what both Diplomacy and Intimidate can allow a PC to get, which is perfectly reasonable.
Why then do you see a problem with a PC using Diplomacy or Intimidate against a NPC ?
If the GM does not apply the RAW and lets the use of these skills ruin the scenario, then the problem lies with the GM and not with the player.
I feel giving skill immunity to a NPC without a "realistic" explanation (for example a magical mind-block or somesuch) is just cheating/being lazy on the part of the writer and on the part of the GM.
More generally, the skills system is too easy to game. Getting a +20 or +30 even in a skill check is fairly easy, and often the items that boost skills are relatively inexpensive. Its particularly bad because there are very few characters that are good at countering the skills, some of them are simply impossible to counter.
Which skills are you talking about and why could PCs abuse them and NPCs could not ?
|
|
In organized play, the GM is expected to largely follow the material as written. Not to mention that time is limited.
Feel free to come up with creative ways to deal with situations as they occur, but try to avoid doing things that bypass entire sections of the scenario or to destroy the plot.
What I expect the GM to do, even (especially) in organized play, is to have prepared the scenario thoroughly beforehand. And that includes taking into account likely PCs' actions (like, say, Intimidate a prisoner into giving info) and tweak the scenario if what is written is not satisfying (Immunity to Intimidate for no discernable reason beyond GM/writer's fiat).
Let's be honest : some scenes in some modules were badly designed and need GM work to make something useful of them.
Ruining a player's fun "because it says so in the module" is the GM being lazy.
|
|
I figure some people see Diplomacy and Intimidate and such as shortcuts to everything. It isn't completely unheard of to see someone trying to make a loyal castle guard go get a drink with a supernatural diplomacy check. Regardless of how insane your bonus is, it doesn't mean you always get what you want.
I do think, however, that the DCs for these (diplomacy and intimidate) are too low. Demoralize is so easy even for a halfling...
|
|
I agree with Dennis.
The Intimidate skill only allows you to get an enemy to treat you as "Friendly". They are not Dominated, or even treated as "Helpful". They may part with information, but there may be some things they will never reveal, due to loyalty, ignorance, or fear. And as Dennis points out, some things are beyond even "Helpful".
A scenario writer cannot cover every possible PC action and NPC reaction. Some times, the short answer is all you are going to get.
|
|
What I expect the GM to do, even (especially) in organized play, is to have prepared the scenario thoroughly beforehand. And that includes taking into account likely PCs' actions (like, say, Intimidate a prisoner into giving info) and tweak the scenario if what is written is not satisfying (Immunity to Intimidate for no discernable reason beyond GM/writer's fiat).Let's be honest : some scenes in some modules were badly designed and need GM work to make something useful of them.
Ruining a player's fun "because it says so in the module" is the GM being lazy.
Black Raven
You have some very valid points and in an utopia world were world peace has been achieved this should be the as it is.
But let's start with your first paragraph:
Expectation is a strong word. Off the last five games I GMed I did two of them cold. That means no preparation beforehand at all. Before you now judge me as a lazy or unprepared let me explain why this happened.
The first one was at GenCon. I hadn't book anything in advance I was just staying around when Mark Moreland needed a replacement GM. As experienced GM I felt comfortable enough doing it instead of having the game cancelled. I got good feedback afterwards despite lack of preparation.
Last weekend I had friends over for a special session - my 60th game. We had time but not decided on a scenario as we couldn't find one that nobody had played. Checking a spreadsheet with all permutations we found one scenario that nobody had played - but also nobody had GMed.
This have been the very first times I did run something cold. I will avoid it if I can - but if needed I will step up.
My ideal as GM is to have played the scenario first, GMed it once to figure out the issues and then to GM it to the best of my abilities forward.
It won't happen all the time.
Thod
|
|
I think Camelot, that you might benefit from spending some time on the other side of the screen. It will give you more perspective and make you a better player as well as an appreciation of the work GM/DM.
Hah! This made me laugh. I actually GM more than I play and have done for as long as I can remember. I also GM for PFS at my local games club. Frankly it's rare that I actually get to play anywhere other than conventions.
So from the responses here people are cool with clunky dialogue and plot developments that make no sense at that table? I have no problem with cliffhangers but they have to make sense. If a player feels that their actions are meaningless then it breaks the verisimilitude of the game. As written many encounters in PFS feel like that and I don't see any problem with a GM running with what the players do.
The problem I see is that the GM pulled back the curtain and explained that intimidation was impossible. The GM could have easily made it seem like it was a legitimate approach, but rolls and bonuses just made it seem like the effort didn't work.
Or if an archer is too good at firing a bow, the GM can just claim he always misses no matter what he rolls. Or if a wizard is casting powerful spells, the GM can just claim that the enemy always successfully saves against them.
Ugh. I've played in games like that, and they're not for me.
As noted above, if the module falls apart by having an enemy act Friendly for 1d6 x 10 minutes, there's something wrong with the module (keeping in mind that "Friendly" is not equal to "brainwashed").
|
|
I feel giving skill immunity to a NPC without a "realistic" explanation (for example a magical mind-block or somesuch) is just cheating/being lazy on the part of the writer and on the part of the GM.
The NPC wasn't given "immunity" to Intimidate. The module simply indicated that the NPC's attitude/morals/personality (which is supported by the rules) indicated he would not be susceptible to giving up information if intimidated.
What more explanation do you need than that? Its clearly supported in the rules. In an organized play campaign, the GM or Game Master is actually the Campaign Coordinator/Developer (i.e. Mike and Mark... in the morning?) The table GM's facilitate the running of the modules. But essentially when something in a module describes how an NPC will deal with being intimidated or diplomacized then the GM is essentially using his/her discretion to indicate what that NPC will and will not do when made "friendly" do to intimidate.
If a player feels that their actions are meaningless then it breaks the verisimilitude of the game. As written many encounters in PFS feel like that and I don't see any problem with a GM running with what the players do.
Not trying to contradict you here, just trying to find a middle ground. I don't think you're being unreasonable, but I do want to present you with a different view to consider.
To your first point...
If not having complete freedom and power to do anything you want, without limit, ruins the verisimilitude, then you may be placing unrealistic expectations on the game world. IRL, people come up against brick walls all the time. I could train for my entire life to be as tactful and diplomatic as possible, but I'm still going to come up against people who will shut me out and refuse to even be friendly at all. Diplomacy should fail just as often as Intimidate should. Some people would rather die at your hands than face their master later and have to explain that they told you everything. This does not, however, exclude small bits of information... but the reasonable restrictions still apply.
Sometimes, certain skills should fail. Should they fail all the time? No. Should one skill be far more useful than others? Not necessarily. Diplomacy and tact IRL can make up a huge portion of what is necessary to survive in certain settings. Is Diplomacy going to help while trying to survive in the woods, alone? Obviously not. Are you going to be able to Diplomacy a deer into cooking itself for your dinner? No, that's an auto-fail.
While these are extreme examples, I'm trying to make a point. Sometimes, skills just don't apply, due to the psychological makeup of a person, or the specifications of a situation.
To your second point...
The issue that the writers probably tried to present with things like these rules is a situation like this: The PCs stack their Intimidate, so that each person has +20 to their roll. That is 5 players with +20. They decide to find an adult dragon. Since the GM in your situation can't say no, they find one. One PC rolls and Intimidates the dragon into being "friendly" for a while. The PCs now have a ride, and a combat ally that should be able to auto-kill anyone in the scenario.
Since there are 5 PCs, each with Intimidate optimized, they can keep the dragon under their control for a maximum of 5 hours (1d6 x 10 minutes x 5 players). That isn't bad enough, the Intimidate DC resets after one hour, so the dragon is now Intimidated eternally, assuming the rolls pass. The module is now pretty much broken, which honestly wouldn't be a problem... with the exception that this is Organized play, meaning that each player who gets credit for it is expected to have had a reasonably similar playthrough on it. If you take your chronicle sheet to a con and show them that you completed the scenario, they expect that your character played through it. In addition, nowhere on the chronicle sheet does it have a section for eternally enslaved creatures who now serve you.
The above situation could (theoretically) be applied to any game scenario, finding the most powerful NPC in the game city and Intimidating them into following you. While it's kind of ridiculous to translate the Intimidate skill into forcing someone to serve you, it is equally ridiculous that your GM translated the skill into forcing PCs to serve an enemy. The wording of Intimidate, for reference, is as follows:
"If successful, the target gives you the information you desire, takes action that do not endanger it, or otherwise offers limited assistance."
That is a lot of room for inferred meanings. What exactly is "limited assistance" ? Would carting the PCs around fall under that? Would helping them in combat with aerial breath attacks work, if the NPC was not being endangered?
Note that it doesn't say, "The target drops their weapons, falls to their knees, and completely spills their guts to you and tells you everything they've ever known, completely disregarding their loyalties." The reason for this is because giving the information may endanger the individual. That would go directly against the written explanation of the skill.
I realize these are really extreme examples, but the writers have to draw the line somewhere. If they just said, "Ridiculous uses aren't acceptable," that's open to immense interpretation.
However, I do have to mostly agree with your OP. For offering information that would not endanger the NPC to give, there should be a DC for what sort of information can be gained, and how hard it would be to get it (3.5 Bardic Knowledge had a chart for information DCs). I don't necessarily think that scenario-breaking information should be given, but some bit of information would be good. For example, "The person you're going up against is (class), and often uses (most powerful surprise ability)."
All kinds of stuff
My apologies for the text wall, btw.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Why then do you see a problem with a PC using Diplomacy or Intimidate against a NPC ?
If the GM does not apply the RAW and lets the use of these skills ruin the scenario, then the problem lies with the GM and not with the player.
I feel giving skill immunity to a NPC without a "realistic" explanation (for example a magical mind-block or somesuch) is just cheating/being lazy on the part of the writer and on the part of the GM.
What makes you think they are immune to intimidate? Nothing about the OP indicates they are immune, it just says they are unwilling to share information. You can scare the bejesus out of them and make them do any number of things, but sharing information is not one of those things.
There is a logical, built in, explanation which I don't really think needs expanded. Spilling the beans on your buddies location so the PCs can go KILL them is easily against most people's values. This is a built in carve out from the skill.
"You can do whatever you want, but you won't make me betray Bob"
More generally, the skills system is too easy to game. Getting a +20 or +30 even in a skill check is fairly easy, and often the items that boost skills are relatively inexpensive. Its particularly bad because there are very few characters that are good at countering the skills, some of them are simply impossible to counter.Which skills are you talking about and why could PCs abuse them and NPCs could not ?
All of them that are opposed rolls.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Or if an archer is too good at firing a bow, the GM can just claim he always misses no matter what he rolls. Or if a wizard is casting powerful spells, the GM can just claim that the enemy always successfully saves against them.
Ugh. I've played in games like that, and they're not for me.
Is this actually the case though? Are they immune to intimidate, or just unwilling to share information? There is a pretty significant difference there.
Is this actually the case though? Are they immune to intimidate, or just unwilling to share information? There is a pretty significant difference there.Or if an archer is too good at firing a bow, the GM can just claim he always misses no matter what he rolls. Or if a wizard is casting powerful spells, the GM can just claim that the enemy always successfully saves against them.
Ugh. I've played in games like that, and they're not for me.
I'm talking about Mok's suggestion of having the GM "[make] it seem like the effort didn't work".
I have no problem if the module in question says "even being made 'Friendly' isn't enough for Joe to divulge this information", for instance, if it makes sense in the context of the plot. But scenario writers should also be careful that their ingeniously plotted mysteries don't fall apart every time a Charm or Detect Thoughts spell comes up.
|
|
I have no problem if the module in question says "even being made 'Friendly' isn't enough for Joe to divulge this information", for instance, if it makes sense in the context of the plot. But scenario writers should also be careful that their ingeniously plotted mysteries don't fall apart every time a Charm or Detect Thoughts spell comes up.
The problem with the notion that the person will never give up the information is that it is just not true. Interrogators are trained to get people to talk. Intimidation is not just about being scared enough to talk out of fear. It is also about keeping the captive off balance and trying to get them to trip up and divulge something without meaning to. Sure the person might not willingly give the information, but they often do anyway. And that is the problem with just simply hand waiving away the possibility of gaining the information. It is not fair to the creativity of the players. Once again, give the NPC a modifier, but let the PC's have their shot.
Also several scenarios specifically mention that the NPC can not be intimidated, but mention nothing about Diplomacy. How is this fair? If the argument is that the person will not talk about a subject then why only exclude intimidate? Heck I can go find examples where a diplomacy DC is given while intimidate is not allowed at all. So the PC's are forced to used one skill to get the information, but forbidden from another. Like I said Skill Immunity.
The problem with the notion that the person will never give up the information is that it is just not true. Interrogators are trained to get people to talk. [etc.]
I have no problem if the module in question says "even being made 'Friendly' isn't enough for Joe to divulge this information", for instance, if it makes sense in the context of the plot. But scenario writers should also be careful that their ingeniously plotted mysteries don't fall apart every time a Charm or Detect Thoughts spell comes up.
Now you're confusing D&D Intimidation (which takes a minute but has a built in "Friendly" limitation) and real life interrogation (which I suspect take a heck of a lot more than a minute, in most cases).
Such texts in scenarios or modules always sends warning signs to me. These normally don't translate well for organized play.
I don't have a problem with the fact that the Intimidate skill has a built-in limitation on what it can do (you can't make someone more than "Friendly"). Similarly, the Disguise skill can't be used to make you look two sizes larger; if a module pointed out that impersonating Bill the Cloud Giant can't be done with Disguise, that's not the fault of the module.
|
|
I have no problem if the module in question says "even being made 'Friendly' isn't enough for Joe to divulge this information", for instance, if it makes sense in the context of the plot. But scenario writers should also be careful that their ingeniously plotted mysteries don't fall apart every time a Charm or Detect Thoughts spell comes up.The problem with the notion that the person will never give up the information is that it is just not true. Interrogators are trained to get people to talk. Intimidation is not just about being scared enough to talk out of fear. It is also about keeping the captive off balance and trying to get them to trip up and divulge something without meaning to. Sure the person might not willingly give the information, but they often do anyway. And that is the problem with just simply hand waiving away the possibility of gaining the information. It is not fair to the creativity of the players. Once again, give the NPC a modifier, but let the PC's have their shot.
Also several scenarios specifically mention that the NPC can not be intimidated, but mention nothing about Diplomacy. How is this fair? If the argument is that the person will not talk about a subject then why only exclude intimidate? Heck I can go find examples where a diplomacy DC is given while intimidate is not allowed at all. So the PC's are forced to used one skill to get the information, but forbidden from another. Like I said Skill Immunity.
It is impossible for a writer to include all possible options. Would it be better to say, “Diplomacy or Intimidate (DC xx)”? Sure it would. Would it be ok for a GM to allow one or the other if the players want to get creative? Sure it would.
Unless… it specifically says that the individual won’t give up some information for some reason or another.
And as far as trained interrogators go, it sometimes takes weeks or months for the best of the best to get any information from someone. In a typical PFS scenario, you don’t have weeks, but rather more like 10 minutes. Sorry, a simple Intimidate check for 10 minutes of interrogation isn’t doable if the guy doesn’t want to give it up.
|
|
It is impossible for a writer to include all possible options. Would it be better to say, “Diplomacy or Intimidate (DC xx)”? Sure it would. Would it be ok for a GM to allow one or the other if the players want to get creative? Sure it would.
Just want to point out that the 2 skills work quite differently mechanically.
Diplomacy to get Hostile Average Joe to give up an important secret is at least DC 35.
Intimidate to make him Friendly for a bit is DC 10+HD
(Average Joe has all stats of 10)
It's not logical to think that the Intimidate check is automatically going to give you the same information at those DCs. Note however, that the Intimidate can reduce the Diplomacy DC to 20 (bad cop/good cop).
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Clearly the GM in question should have used a more realistic solution. The NPCs should have lied to the character.
"Ok, Ok, I'll talk. That bastard Bob slept with my little sister anyhow. They are staying at an old whorehouse. Bob goes by the name 'Mrs. Feathers'."
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Is this actually the case though? Are they immune to intimidate, or just unwilling to share information? There is a pretty significant difference there.Or if an archer is too good at firing a bow, the GM can just claim he always misses no matter what he rolls. Or if a wizard is casting powerful spells, the GM can just claim that the enemy always successfully saves against them.
Ugh. I've played in games like that, and they're not for me.
I'm talking about Mok's suggestion of having the GM "[make] it seem like the effort didn't work".
I have no problem if the module in question says "even being made 'Friendly' isn't enough for Joe to divulge this information", for instance, if it makes sense in the context of the plot. But scenario writers should also be careful that their ingeniously plotted mysteries don't fall apart every time a Charm or Detect Thoughts spell comes up.
Yeah, dominate, read thoughts, etc should all work the way they are supposed to and shouldn't break things.
In most cases those things will just mean the players bypass an encounter or two or are better prepared for them which IMO is a good reward for clever tactics.
|
|
Clearly the GM in question should have used a more realistic solution. The NPCs should have lied to the character.
"Ok, Ok, I'll talk. That bastard Bob slept with my little sister anyhow. They are staying at an old whorehouse. Bob goes by the name 'Mrs. Feathers'."
Oh, now they're boned.
Snorter, aka Bob Feather
|
|
Clearly the GM in question should have used a more realistic solution. The NPCs should have lied to the character.
"Ok, Ok, I'll talk. That bastard Bob slept with my little sister anyhow. They are staying at an old whorehouse. Bob goes by the name 'Mrs. Feathers'."
If you failed the roll by 5 or more then yes this should happen. Try reading the rules please. If a GM does this on a successful roll then they are being a horrible GM and using a house rule, which is not allowed in PFS.
It's not logical to think that the Intimidate check is automatically going to give you the same information at those DCs.
Agreed. Intimidate and Diplomacy are not identical. They should be handled differently and indeed the rules do. Yet that has nothing to do with NPC who are simply immune to Intimidate because of writer fiat.
Sorry, a simple Intimidate check for 10 minutes of interrogation isn’t doable if the guy doesn’t want to give it up.
Again ridiculous. Of course they do not want to give up the information. If they did you could just ask without any need to use a skill. Your assertion negates any use of Intimidate. The entire point of the SKILL is to get the person to say something they did not want to. Yes that means sometimes they are gonna blurt out something out of fear, even if there is plenty of rational for them not too.
Example
PC: We know all about you and Ms. Feather tell us what we want to know or we will tell your wife and your momma!
NPC: Not a chance. I ain't talkin. I a more scared of Ms. Feathers and her boss than I am of my wife and momma!
PC: Ms. Feathers is not behind the operation?
NPC: Oh Crap!
See how we just learned that Ms. Feather is not the boss of the operation. Now that might be useful information that the NPC did not mean to give up, but blurted out under duress. When they calm down they might even regret it.
So once again, why should any NPC ever be completely immune to Intimidate?
